Back
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, SANJEEV NARULA
District & Sessions Judge (HQS) – Appellant
Versus
Narender Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. - The present intra-court appeals arise out of a common Order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th January, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order']. Since the factual background and grounds of appeal urged therein are nearly identical, the same are being heard together and decided by way of this common judgment.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Briefly stated, in the month of December 2009, Appellant issued an advertisement for filling vacancies of 412 posts of Lower Division Clerk [hereinafter referred to as 'LDC']. As per the selection criteria prescribed in the advertisement, the aspirants were required to qualify a typewriting test and have a minimum speed of 30 words per minute in English, followed by an interview.
3. Both the Respondents herein applied and qualified the typewriting test and were called for interview. Narender Kumar secured 121 marks in total, with 26 marks in typewriting test; and likewise, Neeraj Kumar Sangwan secured aggregate of 113 marks, with 29 marks in the typewriting test. Both were selected, and joined as LDC with Respondent No. 1. Meanwhile, one Sh. Anupam Garg, who had also appeared as a candidate for the selection process, file
Courts should refrain from re-evaluating answer sheets or typewriting sheets and should presume the correctness of the criteria applied by the examining authority. The absence of any rule or procedur....
Judicial review cannot extend to the re-evaluation of examination results; courts must respect the evaluators' judgments when properly conducted without clear procedural violations.
Judicial review allows for correction of computational errors in marking but not re-evaluation of exam criteria or assessment methodologies.
The importance of refraining from re-evaluating answer scripts and impinging on an academic evaluator's jurisdiction in the context of judicial review.
Judicial interference in examination results is limited to rare situations where a clear material error is established; courts should not reassess answers without evident justification.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
